There’s been a lot of criticism lately about the insurance industry and I wrote about some of the bad press in an earlier blog. Unfortunately, there’s not enough said about the good the industry does.

So when my sister called the other day, so happy she couldn’t get the story out fast enough, I took notice.

My sister is a single mom with two kids, who also works full time and has a long commute, so time is a premium for her. When a slow leak in her main bathroom caused the glue on the carpets to dissolve, creating strong fumes, it was no small matter.

She and the kids were moved out of the house and into a hotel until carpet and flooring could be replaced. This was a month ago at least. In fact, when she called I expected the work to have been completed and that she had moved back into the house.

That’s not how it worked out, however. Because she is in the process of refinancing, one bank received the check from the insurer and began dictating terms for repairs—doling out money only 20 percent at a time, after repairs were made. Unfortunately, very few contractors will work this way, and so the house sat, and sat.

After several weeks in a hotel with two kids and a very frustrated baby sitter, she called her adjuster, practically in tears. When the adjuster found out what was happening, she promised she would take care of the situation. Wonder Woman made a few calls and before long, she arrived with check in-hand. Finally the repair work could begin.

This is where the insurance industry excels, people to people, and the adjuster is often the face of the industry. The question becomes how to get the word out about the many people who are helped after disasters and incidents like my sister’s.

One insurer that knows first-hand about the long term goodwill of coming through after a disaster is Lloyd’s, which is still remembered for paying claims in San Francisco after the great earthquake and fire of 1906.

Here’s a fascinating paragraph from Wikipedia that gives an idea of the role insurers played:

“Insurance companies, faced with staggering claims of $250 million, paid out between $235 million and $265 million on policyholders’ claims, often for fire damage only, since shake damage from earthquakes was excluded from coverage under most policies. At least 137 insurance companies were directly involved and another 17 as reinsurers. Twenty companies went bankrupt, and most excluded shake damage claims. However, Lloyds of London reports having paid all claims in full, more than 50 million dollars and the insurance companies in Hartford, Connecticut report also paying every claim in full; the Hartford Fire Insurance Company paying over 11 million dollars and Aetna Insurance Company almost $3 million.”

Again, how to get the word out—beyond the industry. Maybe a cartoon strip, “Amazing True Adjuster Tales,” would work, or perhaps a column consisting of testimonials?

 But this is a creative industry—ideas anyone?

The issue of large numbers of deer has impacted many communities, especially those containing large parks and forest land. To deal with the issue, some communities are considering options such as sharp-shooting and bow hunting to thin herds.

This is an issue in the community where I live, in the New York City suburbs near the Hudson River, where there are many state and county parks. One evening last month, I attended a public hearing of county officials about whether to allow bow hunting of deer in county parks.

The hall was packed, with a strong showing of county citizens opposed to bow hunting in the parks, where they said they often walk; as well as bow hunters, who are presently allowed to hunt in several surrounding counties and want to hunt in this one as well.

There was a lot of evidence presented on both sides of the issue. The hunters talked about safety and the need to cull herds of deer. Some locals cited run-ins on their private property with hunters. Others who use the parks frequently are fearful for their pets and children. And one county resident suggested monitoring a neighboring county, which has begun to allow bow hunting, before making a decision (which I thought was a good suggestion).

I was surprised last week by an above-the-fold, front page headline in our newspaper, “Family Dog Killed by Hunter.” The subhead read: “Man says arrow struck pet during walk in [local] park.”

The man, walking his two dogs early one morning, said he had let them off the leash. After one dog ran into the nearby woods he heard a clapping sound followed by his crying dog. When he saw his dog bleeding, fearing a sniper, the man ran out of the park with his other dog and contacted the police. The police helped the man retrieve his dog, which they found had been shot by an arrow and died. They discovered a hunter’s stand nearby in the trees.

A few days later, it was reported police had tracked down the hunter, who admitted he was bow hunting for deer and mistook the dog for a coyote. This is a sad story that could have had much worse consequences.

Curious about how the issue of bow hunting in counties might be handled best, I contacted an expert: a public entity risk manager in Colorado.

Deb Carson, risk manager for the City of Longmont, Colo., in Boulder County, said this is a hot issue in many parts of the country, including Colorado, where she said large numbers of elk can be a problem.

Deb, a former president of PRIMA and a board member for PERI, recommended a county considering this work with the state agency overseeing wildlife. She explained that while bow hunting may be a good solution for some areas, it may not be for others, especially heavily populated areas where public parks and hiking trails get fairly heavy use. In areas such as this, she said a solution might be to designate one park, especially if there is a deer issue.

She also recommended limiting the hunting season to one or two weeks and heavily posting the area. The area also should be patrolled, possibly with volunteer enforcement that could include hunters—who have a vested interest in seeing that things run smoothly. Hunting classes are another option, she said, adding that the county would set the rules for hunters—and penalties for breaking the rules.

Unfortunately, accidents do sometimes happen, which is all the more reason for limiting the hunting area, heavily posting the area and monitoring.

Deb said that the county may want to follow the advice of one of the attendees of my county’s hearing, who recommended that our county monitor the neighboring county for a season or two to see how bow hunting in their parks works out for them.

While I have to admit, I’m a little nervous about having hunters in our county parks, especially after someone’s pet dog was just killed, Deb’s recommendations make sense. The next step is to see what the county decides.

As promised, this is part III of a series about dogs and their owners, one of the owners being me. 

As I mentioned in Part I, my dog was bitten in the face by an off-leash dog in a state park not far from where I live. Our shepherd-chow mix had three puncture wounds, two of which had to be repaired with staples. I wrote a column in our area newspaper, discussing the many dangers of having a dog run off-leash—dangers to dogs and people, including children, who may be in the vicinity.

Then there’s the liability of dog bites. As I mentioned in Part II, jury awards for dog bite victims average around $24,000. There is a lot of sympathy from jurors, because those bitten by dogs often are children.

I was intrigued by a response to my column, which was originally published in our area newspaper. Printed in the paper a few days later, the writer stated that people who walk in public parks with their dogs off leash fall into two categories: they are either arrogant or ignorant. Some are arrogant, thinking that the laws do not apply to them, others are ignorant of what could happen and the damage and liability that could ensue.

So as promised, here’s the update on our situation. After requesting a copy of the NY State Park Police report, we learned that the officer covering the incident went by the woman’s house (which we had correctly identified after questioning neighbors). She admitted that her dog, off leash, had bitten our dog. She was issued a ticket by the police and was fined $135, we later learned .

Since I had the woman’s name and phone number from the police report, I called her about restitution for our vet bill, which was more than $400. She seemed surprised that we had taken our dog to the vet at all. Her dog, she said, had also sustained an injury but she didn’t take him. When I asked why, she said “Because he’s a dog. They heal.”

We agreed to a settlement on the bill, I received a check a week later and I’m glad to report that the ordeal is over. Our dog seems fine now and shows no visible scars.

Christine Mancini, CEO of Captive.com, also a dog owner who is crazy about her dogs, commented in an e-mail that she worries that something like this could happen to one of her dogs.

“Not only would we owners have to deal with a possibly severe injury, should our dog be on the receiving end of a bite from an aggressive dog that is ‘running free as the wind,’” she said, but “a secondary consequence is that an attack like this—caused wholly by the owner’s irresponsible behavior, not that of the attacking dog—can permanently ruin the previously-sweet, trusting temperament of the victimized dog, making HIM a potentially loaded gun in the presence of other dogs from that day forward.”

Chris noted that one of her dogs in particular, which are Bouviers, would have a “pretty good crack at avoiding an attack, purely due to his hard-wired herding dog maneuverability (the ‘Bouvier bounce’ has a strong basis in reality!).” However, she said, “if successfully bitten by an aggressive dog, I can assure you that he would NEVER forget it.”

She added, “I’m glad you are calling attention to this issue.”

An irresponsible dog owner’s actions can have many ripple effects, such as in my case. Happily my dog seems like his old self. I do suspect, however, that he will be much more on guard the next time we take him on a trail and another dog passes by—on or off of its leash. As Chris says, dogs can be traumatized and don’t always get over it so easily.

A political cartoon in my local newspaper today made me laugh—for a moment or two.

The cartoon, by Matt Davies, depicts a huge shark lurking just beneath the water’s surface and a very small boat floating above. A man standing on the deck is aiming a tiny harpoon. The shark, labeled “insurance cos.,” is saying “They want to hurt us” to a person seen huddling inside the shark for protection, depicting the  “health industry” (Hey, it’s not easy to describe a cartoon).

While the depiction is funny, it also portrays, once again, a predatory image of the insurance industry. This health care issue has people confused and upset and not knowing what or who to believe.

So it’s unnerving to read an editorial in today’s New York Times about an analysis commissioned by industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers. According to the column, the report only looked at four components of the Finance Committee’s bill that would drive up costs, ignoring those likely to bring costs down for many.

I tried, without luck, to find a summary or mention of the study on the AHIP Web site, so I have linked to the Times editorial, below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/opinion/15thu1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

My point is that by not presenting all sides of the issue, the insurance industry, like the cartoon, appears to be desperately protecting itself at the cost of the consumer. In the long run, I believe these tactics will backfire.

Just a few days after our own dog-bite incident, which I wrote about in a previous blog, I saw this article on our Web site. Sure enough, the number of dog bites, and court cases, is rising. This isn’t a surprise after my experiences in the past few months with some dog owners, who let their dogs run around off-leash and don’t want to take responsibility for their actions.

In fact, the article, dated Sept. 14, stated that jury awards and medical costs for dog bites are climbing. Homeowners insurance liability claims for dog bite injuries are up a whopping 28 percent since 2003, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Claims for canine bites are also “biting into” homeowners insurance costs (sorry about the pun, couldn’t resist). Dog bites account for one-third of all homeowners’ insurance liability costs. This totaled $387.20 million in 2008—up a whopping 8.7 percent over 2007!

The organization said the average cost of dog bite claims was $24,461 in 2008 (the most recent figures available). While this was down slightly from $24,511 in 2007, the number of claims increased 8.89 percent to 15,823 in 2008 from 14,531 in 2007.

The Institute noted that more than 4.5 million people in the U.S. are bitten by dogs annually, and nearly 900,000 of those—half of them children—require medical care. This was according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With more than 50 percent of bites occurring on the dog owner’s property, the issue is a major source of concern for insurers, the Institute noted.

The I.I.I. mentioned that in some states, the owner is not held liable for the first bite the dog inflicts. Once an animal has demonstrated vicious behavior, however, such as biting or otherwise displaying a “vicious propensity,” the owner can be held liable.

These trends are not surprising as more people are adopting dogs. As I said before, this is a very good thing, but this is the down-side. And there is always a down-side.

As I witnessed recently in the incident with my dog, the other dog’s owner did not have her dog leashed and did not seem to care that my dog was injured.

Sadly, this lack of understanding, compassion and common sense is a bad reflection on dog owners overall, not to mention potential harm to their dogs, other dogs and people.

National Underwriter is about to release results of a new survey of top-rated commercial lines writers—valuable information to insurance buyers, especially now, with renewals in the works.

The Risk Manager Choice Awards, conducted in partnership with Flaspöhler Research Group, used a technique that insured that risk managers taking the survey only rated commercial lines writers they were familiar with.

Rick Flaspöhler, president of the Kansas City, Mo.-based research firm, explained that typical surveys are often biased towards larger competitors, but that the adaptive interviewing technique used here levels the playing field. In other words, the survey was set up so that the number of votes an underwriter received was not the determining factor, but rather, how highly each commercial lines writer was rated by those familiar with them.

The top-rated commercial lines writers are about to be announced on Oct. 16, but you can get a sneak peek by signing up, or opting-into the National Underwriter P&C Updates list.

Also, NU Editor in Chief Sam Friedman will be tweeting updates on Oct. 13 and Oct. 26.

So be sure to get on the National Underwriter P&C Updates list, by signing up at http://ow.ly/pOgo .

The fact that more and more people are adopting more and more dogs is a very good thing. The fact that some of those people think their dogs need to run free and un-tethered, even in public parks, can be a very bad thing. Because when dogs collide—especially when one is on a leash and the other is not—bad things can happen.

I know, because it recently happened to me and one of my dogs.

That’s Part 1 of the story. As you will see in Part II, this is not an isolated incident and is noted by the insurance industry. It’s more of a troubling national trend, with dog attacks on other dogs—and people—happening more and more often. As you’ll see in Part III it can take a lot of effort to resolve events like these, involving not only dogs and their owners, but often the police as well.

What does all this have to do with risk management? For one thing, it shows how simple precautions can save everyone a lot of time and pain. And what happens when some people think those precautions aren’t necessary for them—in other words, rules and regulations don’t apply in their case.

Part I is an op-ed column I wrote for our regional newspaper earlier this month detailing our unfortunate encounter with a thoughtless dog owner:

Here’s a scenario of what happened on a recent Saturday, while my husband and I walked our two dogs on a trail in a public park in our area. We spotted a dog coming toward us, realized it was off-leash and called to the owner to leash it—quickly! The owner had no leash and no control over the dog, which made an immediate beeline for our dogs.

Before we could stop it, the stranger’s dog had sunk its teeth into the face of our 8-year-old German shepherd-chow mix—a dog lover’s worst nightmare. The dog was good sized and muscular and was not letting go, but finally broke away when its owner came up and grabbed its collar. Meanwhile our dog’s face and mouth were bleeding.

The woman was full of excuses why her dog was off-leash—she lived nearby and none of the local residents bother with a leash, she said. In other words, this was her extended backyard. We reminded her that leashing her dog is the law, nevertheless, and had she followed it, our dog would not be bleeding. We tried to exchange phone numbers, but nobody had a pen or paper. Because of the situation with the two dogs, we could not walk back to our car with her. She agreed to go to her house nearby, write down her information and leave it on our windshield. She did not.

When we returned home I called the New York state park police and reported the incident, only to learn that there’s been a big problem with dogs off-leash in public parks this season. The park police strongly suggested we take our dog to an emergency vet, even though the wounds by this time had stopped bleeding and appeared to be minor.

The vet shaved our dog’s face to get a good look and ended up having to staple two puncture wounds-one of which went all the way through the dog’s cheek. We’re very lucky the damage wasn’t worse.

I’ve had dogs for years and I’ve learned the hard way to always keep my dogs leashed outside a fenced yard. A few times when hiking in the mountains outside of Los Angeles several years back, I let my shepherd-mix run off-leash. During one walk she heard something in the bushes, of course, ran over and stuck her head in—because that’s what dogs do—and was promptly sprayed square in the face by a skunk. This was a tough lesson, but learning it probably saved my dogs’ lives just a few weeks later. That time the rustling sound beside the trail turned out to be a rattlesnake! But my dogs were at a safe distance on their leashes.

As an editor at a trade magazine covering the risk management beat, I’ve learned the value of applying risk management to everyday life. In other words, thinking about the consequences of an act beforehand to avoid heartache. Before going out to the park or the trail and letting the dog run loose, think about what could happen to your dog or other dogs—or to bicyclists or even children who might be playing nearby.

Think about how you would feel if it was your dog being attacked. And, if this fails to concern you, think about your wallet and how you might feel having to fork over money for a fine to the state park police. Or worse yet, paying hundreds—minimum—for an injured dog’s vet bill (and that injured dog could be your own). These are all things that have a good likelihood of happening from this seemingly innocuous act.

What will happen in our case? We will find the woman with the dog—we already have a good idea where she lives and so do the police. And she will be paying our dog’s veterinary bill. Had she been more cooperative our attitude might be different – because, as others have found out through experience, the best way to avoid legal problems is to admit wrongdoing and apologize—two things that did not happen in our case.

And one more thing: If we should run into an unleashed dog in a public park, we’ll be on the cell phone immediately—and the park police are on speed-dial.

(To be continued)

Every year, the Reinsurance Rendez-Vous in Monte Carlo has a theme. In 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina, which was unfolding during the course of the meeting, for example. Last year it was Ike.

During my first Rendez-Vous in 2003, the talk was all about downgrades, mostly centered on the Swiss reinsurer Converium, which had been downgraded just days before the meeting and SCOR, which had previously been downgraded. There was serious concern about the viability of the companies.

Not long after that, SCOR came up with a plan that included restructuring, and later massive PR events. Henry Klecan Jr., president and CEO of the Americas for SCOR in New York, told me the about the plan, explaining that it reigned in “cowboy” underwriters and put in place checks and balances for underwriting, shut down at least one location and developed teams to work in close proximity with clients.

The company, he said, was determined to be a fully functioning reinsurer.

Two years ago SCOR amped up its PR program to restore the company’s image. One massive billboard after another were created by artists dangling from ropes during the course of the Rendez-Vous. As soon as one was finished, another was painted on top of it and then another. Three in all. Mimes helped complete the air of celebration (I’m not crazy about mimes, but hey, it’s a French company).

Last year SCOR had several tents erected where it held meetings and press conferences and did so again this year. Behind the casino was a huge white tent (with air conditioning) and an outdoor deck. My favorite part was the soft ice cream cones.

Is SCOR’s plan working? Their ratings are where they need to be and a few analysts have admitted that SCOR has pulled off a daunting feat. Once a company slips below a “B” rating, I’ve been told, it generally continues to decline. SCOR also managed to secure the loyalty of brokers and clients, which was key to their success.

So you be the judge. But from where I sit, it looks like the company is doing pretty well—mimes aside.

At the recent VCIA conference in August, a rumor was being circulated that Bill White could be the next captive administrator of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Bill, who has worked in many aspects of the industry, including captive administrator for Washington, D.C. and most recently Delaware, left Delaware this summer, looking forward to opportunities in the private sector. That’s why I wondered if this was any more than a rumor.

When I talked to him late last week, Bill confirmed that he indeed has had a few conversations with U.S. Virgin Islands and that there is interest on both sides. Whether an offer is made remains to be seen, he said, adding that he has read through the U.S. Virgin Island’s new statutes and finds them “intriguing.”

Meanwhile, after years as a captive regulator, he said he is enjoying being on the “other side.” He clarified that what he’s doing now isn’t captive management, but rather serving as a consultant and answering questions for people considering a captive formation. He said he now has a few projects and helps clients with queries such as, “Can I provide capital funding for a captive in this form?” and “What kind of risk elements do I have here?”

So what’s the next step for Bill White? Stay tuned.

As a reporter covering conferences from year to year, there are a number of people I look forward to seeing. Part of the fun of being at a meeting is catching up with conference buddies, some of whom are other reporters.

One fellow journalist that I’ve missed seeing at the last two captive conferences is Karen Cutts, publisher and managing editor of the Risk Retention Reporter. We’ve been attending some of the same conferences for the past eight or nine years.

Karen was absent from the Captive Insurance Companies Association conference in March and from the Vermont Captive Insurance Association conference earlier this month, for health reasons. She also has had to suspend a monthly column she writes for NU on risk retention groups.

I read a notice today in the latest Risk Retention Reporter that Karen is expected to remain on medical leave for an extended period of time. Meanwhile, her husband and business partner, James Cutts, has stepped in as publisher. Chris Dauer, whom I met at VCIA, is now working as staff writer for RRR, covering the East Coast, the notice said. Chris, in fact, was an employee at NU before I started here in 2000.

Here’s something interesting that happened a couple of years ago at the CICA conference, when Karen and I were catching up at dinner in the hotel restaurant. Karen noticed that renowned White House correspondent Helen Thomas—who was to be keynote speaker the next day—had been seated at a table near ours. She suggested we say hello, so we stopped by on our way out and chatted with Helen for a few minutes. Helen was warm and charming, and interested in the fact that we were both reporters. She also asked some questions about captives and the insurance industry in general, which we were happy to answer.

And so I anticipate seeing Karen at the CICA conference in March—hopefully before then. I know Hugh Rosenbaum, retired principal for Towers Perrin in London, would also like to see here there. The two play musical instruments and have enjoyed practicing together over the years during conference down-time.

Karen, get well soon!